James White's "God Breathed" Argument

[Jerry-Jet]

And Kaycee please tell us why we should worship at the altar of God breathed written scripture only but have absolutely no regard whatsoever for Jesus who is God breathing on the disciples After Calvary and giving them the power to forgive and retain sin.

What is more valid–the written scriptures or the very words and breath of Jesus?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Is this some secret Gnostic teaching that only the apostles know about?

No.

 

[Returnee]

It is not a “God Breathed” Church. In John 20:21, the Greek verb used is the aorist active indicative of emphusao, meaning to “breathe on”. The verse does not use “Theopneustos” God Breathed.

The way I see it, there are two possible things God can do, with regards to His Breath. One is “inspiring” someone to write His Words on paper, that is, guiding them to write His Words on paper. But this isn’t actually breathing on them, it’s just an expression, an idiom, to imply “inspiration”. By what actual mechanism this takes place remains a mystery.

Two, where God actually, physically “breathes” on someone. This only occurs twice in Scripture, once, at Creation, and the next time, when He breathes on His apostles, giving them the power to bind and loose.

So really, we come to a question of, “Which is more significant: When God inspires someone, interacting on a spiritual, non physical level, or, when God actually, physically interacts with someone, and through this physical interaction, gives someone or a group of people some of His actual power or ability?”

It seems to me that the latter would be more significant, if not for the reason it only happened twice in Scripture (as far as God’s breath goes), then also for the fact that at the moment Jesus breathed on His apostles, He actually gave them a power, a supernatural ability, that still exists today!

I suppose one could argue that God gave the authors of Scripture some of His power too (His Word) when inspiring them. However this was a one time gift, that no longer exists today. The power given to the Apostles still exists today, and will continue until the end of time.

This seems more significant to me.

 

[RonRule]

These are my rough thoughts:

1. Even if Holy Scripture is the only thing described in Holy Scripture as *theopneustos *, I don’t think this makes a strong case for Sola Scriptura. We could easily say something like “since only Mary is called kecharitomene, therefore Sola Maria, and she’s our only infallible authority!”

Unique does not equal ultimate.

1. What help does John 20:21-23 bring to the discussion?

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (NIV)

The apostles were also “breathed upon”, though this seems to be a completely different word than theopneustos, as kaycee pointed out.

But it continues with them receiving the Holy Spirit (pneuma), which does bear some resemblance to our interlocutors linchpin descriptor. In this light, perhaps “God-spirited” or “inspired by God” starts to gain traction as the best translation of theopneustos.

 

[PhilVaz]

I’ve already quoted these (emphasis bold):

“Contrary to persistent charges by Roman apologists, Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all Christians…To be sure, all special revelation given by God is authoritative and binding. There can be no doubt that the oral teaching of the apostles and their approved representatives was both (1 Thess 2:13).” (David King, Holy Scripture [2001] volume 1, page 55,145)

“Let it be stated as clearly as possible: Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritative, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith on those who heard it…the apostolic message…was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself…So the written words of Scripture are binding. Apostolic preaching was equally binding for those who heard it from the apostles’ own mouths.” (John MacArthur in Don Kistler Sola Scriptura!, page 171,178,182)

And more:

“The Old Testament believer was under the authority of the revealed word carried to the prophet by the Holy Spirit – whether oral or written…the divinely revealed and therefore authoritative word is presented to the world through the spoken or written word of the Spirit-inspired prophet” (The Pattern of Religious Authority by Bernard Ramm [Eerdmans, 1965], page 27,28).

“Some New Testament documents were evidently designed from the outset to be written compositions, not substitutes for the spoken word. But in the lifetime of the apostles and their colleagues their spoken words and their written words were equally authoritative…The teaching and example of the Lord and his apostles, whether conveyed by word of mouth or in writing, had axiomatic authority for [the earliest Christians]…” (The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce [InterVarsity, 1988], page 118, 255).

So the oral preaching, oral teaching, oral tradition of the apostles was just as inspired, just as authoritative, just as much the Word of God as Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19ff; 3:15f; 2 Tim 3:15ff; 2 Thess 2:15; etc). The argument from “sola scriptura” Evangelicals is not that this “oral teaching” is not God-breathed, but that we have:

(1) somehow “lost” that oral apostolic tradition and/or cannot have access to it now
(2) or it was completely subsumed into the written.

Material sufficiency partially agrees with this saying all doctrines are contained in Scripture (at least implicitly), but also all doctrines are contained in tradition.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, let me reply to David King a little bit from the NTRMin.org, yeah I check that pretty much dead board occasionally. What I meant about “material sufficiency” being new to popular Catholic apologetics is true. Before 1993 I am not aware of popular apologists using this material/formal distinction. Folks like Fulton J. Sheen (apologist of the 1950s, 60s), Frank Sheed (Catholic Evidence Guild of the 1930s, 40s, 50s), the “Radio Replies” priests (of the 1930s, 40s), and even later Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism (1988) didn’t use this “material” and “formal” sufficiency distinction in arguing with Protestants.

The material/formal distinction was revived in popular apologetics first with that Oct 1993 issue of This Rock, and the Aug and Sept 1993 debates of Keating/Madrid, and Madrid vs. White.

I mentioned professional theologians (such as Congar in the 1960s) have made such distinctions (King brings up some theologian from an earlier period who said similar things). Cardinal Newman (who I call a professional theologian and historian) of the 19th century was also aware of such distinctions and affirmed a material sufficiency. But popular apologists (Sheed, Sheen, Keating, et al) of the 20th century as far as I’m aware did not use such language (until 1993).

Phil P

 

[Philthy]

One of James White’s arguments for sola scriptura is that in

2 Timothy 3:16 it refers to scripture as “God Breathed.” and according to him, since the church, and sacred tradition, are not called God Breathed in scripture, therefore he concludes that only scripture is God Breathed.

In addition to the problem you sited, even if Scripture were the only thing described as “God Breathed”, that would not prove Sola Scriptura in the slightest. It would only confirm the point that Scripture is the Word of God. That is not a proof of SS, that is simply an acknowledgement of a belief that Catholics and Protestants already share.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Phil,

Can you explain the distinction? Material and formal?

Thanks,
Ut

 

[Philthy]

These are my rough thoughts:

1. Even if Holy Scripture is the only thing described in Holy Scripture as *theopneustos *, I don’t think this makes a strong case for Sola Scriptura. We could easily say something like “since only Mary is called kecharitomene, therefore Sola Maria, and she’s our only infallible authority!”

Unique does not equal ultimate.

1. What help does John 20:21-23 bring to the discussion?

The apostles were also “breathed upon”, though this seems to be a completely different word than theopneustos, as kaycee pointed out.

But it continues with them receiving the Holy Spirit (pneuma), which does bear some resemblance to our interlocutors linchpin descriptor. In this light, perhaps “God-spirited” or “inspired by God” starts to gain traction as the best translation of theopneustos.

If I had taken the time to read this i wouldnt have bothered posting the same point. good work!

 

[mtr01]

Are you implying that I don’t need a magisterium to figure out Jesus is God?

Just would like to see your private interpretation of that verse echoed in scripture, history, or magesterium interpretation, not just the past 20 years of catholic apologetics.

As for me I am stating straight up that you have a magisterium to figure out Jesus is God. No implying about it.

Let’s not forget Arius used the Scriptures as the basis for the belief that Jesus was not God.

 

[runandsew]

Only scripture is ‘God breathed’, but the teaching Magestrium of the Church is guarded from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.

Mr. White says that if there is another source of revelation to bind Christians, that it must be of the same nature, which is ‘God breathed’.

Why is that?

Why can’t we accept that which is taught by the Church and which is guarded from error by the Holy Spirit?

Why does it have to be the same exact nature?

And to the Traditions having to be the same exact thing which is written in the epistles.
Well, even in scripture we have oral traditions which were passed on through thousands of years which were never inscripturated until they found there way into the New Testament. Are you saying that there were just the few which were finally written in the New Testament, or could have there been others.

Here is a link to what I am referring to.
Oral Tradition in the New Testament

 

[savedsinner]

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I take it by this passage that all scripture is God breathed, and all Christians therefore are bound by what is taught in this scripture.

Are the 27 books of the New Testament God inspired scripture?
Is the Koran God inspired scripture?
Is the book of Mormon God inspired scripture?

How do we know for sure which is and isn’t God inspired word?

Am I bound by what is written in the Koran or the book of Mormon, after all this passage says that all scripture is inspried?

If we are only bound by what is taught in God breathed Scripture, and not by oral tradition or the teaching of the Church outside of scripture, then where is it taught in scripture which books are the inspired ones, and which ones are not?

If the Koran speaks to me in a spiritual way, and I feel that it is the Holy Spirit leading me, Am I then bound to follow what is taught in it?

The church councils might have made a mistake of which books are God inspired scripture.

I believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ, and this Holy Spirit led the church to recognize which is inspired and which isn’t.
And I believe that this same Holy Spirit has led the Church since it’s founding, and guided the church.
I feel that the Protestant churches which broke away from the true Catholic church, have left this promise to be led infallible, and that is why they teach many errors and follow ‘man made traditions’, like sola scriptura, and sola fide, why so many allow divorce and remarriage, accept artificial birth control, and support abortion, and allow gay marriage… the list goes on and on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Give me one Apostolic Oral “Tradition”?

Here are three:

1. There will be no more Apostles.
2. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
3. The canon of the New Testament is closed.

Do you accept any of these statements?

Are they binding upon all true believers?

Where do you find them in scripture?

 

[MrS]

This is a circular argument.

“Only scripture (and not tradition) is God-breathed because scripture says it is God breathed”

By the same argument, one might suppose that the Koran is God-breathed because it also claims inspiration.

Tradition is what we call the truths learned by the Apostles before much of them were written down.

Now if they learned them from Christ yup: ), then He would either have to “breathe” on them as He spoke, or He was perhaps a ventriloquist?

 

[kaycee]

And Kaycee please tell us why we should worship at the altar of God breathed written scripture only but have absolutely no regard whatsoever for Jesus who is God breathing on the disciples After Calvary and giving them the power to forgive and retain sin.

What is more valid–the written scriptures or the very words and breath of Jesus?

Certainly Jesus, and If He was here I would surely bow down to Him. Since He is not yet, I have his word for instruction.

 

[kaycee]

Here are three:

1. There will be no more Apostles.

The Apostles had no say in that by the very definition of what it meant to be an Apostle.

(1) Read Acts 1:21-22; 10:39-41. In order to be one of the twelve, one had to have accompanied Jesus all the time that He went in and out among His disciples (i.e. from the baptism of John or thereabouts). This was important if the Apostle was to be qualified to be an eye and ear witness of Christ’s resurrection and all that He did.

(2) Read Luke 6:12-13; Acts 1:23-26. There had to be a direct appointment by Jesus Christ if one was to be recognized as a capital “A” Apostle. This was underscored in the selection of Matthias where the final decision was left to the Lord in the drawing of the lots.

(3) Read Acts 1:1-8. A third qualification of a capital “A” Apostle was the reception of a supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit, which was given for two closely-related purposes:

gospelpedlar.com/articles/Holy%20Spirit/no_apostles.html

1. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
2. The canon of the New Testament is closed.

These are essentially the same.

Public revelation ended not by Apostolic fiat, but by the death of the last Apostle. How could this possibly be an Apostolic tradition?

Do you accept any of these statements?

Sure, why not.

Are they binding upon all true believers?

Not in the sense that it must be believed for salvation.

Where do you find them in scripture?

Why would i need to find them in scripture? Many things that are true are not true because of apostolic tradition.

Since scripture talks about the requirements of an apostle, its a no brainer that there are no more apostles past the original group.

Since the writers of the NT were all Apostles or had direct access to their teaching, AND God authenticated them with Signs, it is not rocket science to see that once they were gone, the Canon was also closed.

I do not see how any of those 3 could be Apostolic tradition.

 

[savedsinner]

Since the writers of the NT were all Apostles or had direct access to their teaching, AND God authenticated them with Signs, it is not rocket science to see that once they were gone, the Canon was also closed.
I do not see how any of those 3 could be Apostolic tradition.

Are you serious with these comments, or do you just write things down that pop into your head just to make an argument?

The Canon of the New Testament was set several hundred years after the Apostles died.
There were many books which claimed to be written by the Apostles, but were rejected.

How did they know which were and which were not written by the Apostles?

By Apostolic tradition.

The Apostles said they wrote them and this was passed down in the church by Apostolic Tradition.

I would appreciate if you are going to argue against what the Catholic church teaches you might want to do a little research, or at the least use some common sense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Apostles had no say in that by the very definition of what it meant to be an Apostle.

(1) Read Acts 1:21-22; 10:39-41. In order to be one of the twelve, one had to have accompanied Jesus all the time that He went in and out among His disciples (i.e. from the baptism of John or thereabouts). This was important if the Apostle was to be qualified to be an eye and ear witness of Christ’s resurrection and all that He did.

This definition excludes the Apostle Paul who did not accompany Jesus during his ministry. Saul opposed the Church and sought to have Christians arrested until his own conversion.

(2) Read Luke 6:12-13; Acts 1:23-26. There had to be a direct appointment by Jesus Christ if one was to be recognized as a capital “A” Apostle. This was underscored in the selection of Matthias where the final decision was left to the Lord in the drawing of the lots.

This definition seems to exclude Barnabas for we learn nothing from the scriptures concerning his appointment. And what about Andronicus and Junias?

Romans 16:7
Greet **Andronicus **and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Relatives of Paul were also apostles? Seems that simony can be traced back further than the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

These are essentially the same.

Public revelation ended not by Apostolic fiat, but by the death of the last Apostle. How could this possibly be an Apostolic tradition?

You miss the point. Public revelation did not end by apostolic fiat, and we are not told in SCRIPTURE that it has ended. Therefore, the idea that it has ended comes from some source other than the Bible.

Do you accept any of these statements?

Sure, why not.

I would agree that they should be accepted. However, they create difficulties for those who cling to sola scriptura.

Are they binding upon all true believers?

Not in the sense that it must be believed for salvation.

Really? Is it okay then, for the Mormon to believe that there are apostles living today in Salt Lake City? Is it okay for people to believe that writings other than the Bible are inspired by God or to add or subtract from the canon? How would these things affect salvation?

Moreover, does the doctrine of sola scriptura limit itself to those things which are necessary for salvation?

Why would i need to find them in scripture? Many things that are true are not true because of apostolic tradition.

Because if these things are necessary for believers to accept and they are not found in scripture, then they are from another source and thus the Bible is NOT the sole infallible rule of faith…there is another source of infallible teaching.

Since the writers of the NT were all Apostles or had direct access to their teaching, AND God authenticated them with Signs, it is not rocket science to see that once they were gone, the Canon was also closed.

Does this suggest to you that when Luke or Mark heard the Apostles preach or teach, the words spoken by those apostles may have been infallible

 

[VociMike]

Are you serious with these comments, or do you just write things down that pop into your head just to make an argument?

The Canon of the New Testament was set several hundred years after the Apostles died.
There were many books which claimed to be written by the Apostles, but were rejected.

How did they know which were and which were not written by the Apostles?

By Apostolic tradition.

The Apostles said they wrote them and this was passed down in the church by Apostolic Tradition.

I would appreciate if you are going to argue against what the Catholic church teaches you might want to do a little research, or at the least use some common sense.

Furthermore, why should the New Testament scriptures be limited to such a short era? The OT scriptures were written over a thousand or more years. Who decided that the NT scriptures were done by 90AD?

 

[savedsinner]

Furthermore, why should the New Testament scriptures be limited to such a short era? The OT scriptures were written over a thousand or more years. Who decided that the NT scriptures were done by 90AD?

Very good point.

I personally find “Christ” more present in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans than St. Paul’s letter of Philemon.

Just read the two and see in which you are more convicted by the spirit.